SUDAMA CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF CG
LAWS(CHH)-2005-12-25
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on December 14,2005

Sudama Chandra Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CG Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22-11 -2005, passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur in Second Appeal Case No. 13/A/6/2005-06 setting aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur dated 05-11 -2004 and directing to enter the name of sixth respondent herein in the revenue records in respect of the property bearing Khasra No. 154/4, Area 0.200 hectare situated at P.C. No. 104, R.I. Circle Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Schedule land').
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings initiated by the statutory authority under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Court, 1959 (for short the 'Code'). The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :- According to the petitioner, the schedule land was earlier purchased from original owner - respondent 7 to 11, by a registered sale-deed dated 27-04-2004 marked as Annexure P/3. After the purchase, in pursuance of, an intimation filed by petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records by the Tahsildar as per Annexure- P/4. When the matter stood thus, the sixth respondent filed an intimation before the Tahsildar stating that he has purchased the schedule land from respondents 7 to 11 and therefore, his name be mutated in the revenue records. On receipt of the said intimation, the Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner herein but he did not appear before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, however, rejected the application of the sixth respondent to mutate his name in the revenue records by his order dated 27-09-2004. Being aggrieved by the said order of Tahsildar, the petitioner herein preferred first appeal being revenue appeal case No. 27/A-6/2004-2005 to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur by his order dated 05-11 -2004, allowed the appeal preferred by sixth respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred revision before the Board of Revenue which was subsequently transferred to Additional Collector, Raipur and by virtue of a change in law and the same was treated as Second Appeal No. 13/A/6/2005-2006. The Additional Collector dismissed that appeal by order dated 22-11 -2005. Hence, this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material papers appended to the writ petition. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar Committed an apparent irregularity in entertaining the application of the sixth respondent and that application was not at all maintainable by virtue of provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules regarding records of rights (for short the 'Rules'). It was also contended that if the sixth respondent is aggrieved by the entry made by the Tahsildar civil Court and sought remedies. It was also contended that mutating the name of the sixth respondent in the revenue records without setting aside the entry made in the name of the petitioner in pursuance of intimations filed by him would not arise and admittedly, the sixth respondent did not file any application to set aside the entry made in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.